Conversation and the Internet

In real life, our days are often driven by conversation. Communication is how human people get things done. It is a call and response, a discussion that flows freely from its participants, taking its own form and building upon itself, steering in expected or unexpected directions. 

Conversation has been defined in the following ways:

• Dictionary.com 
• Informal interchange of thoughts, information, etc. by spoken words

This definition requires that conversation be spoken.

• MerriamWebster.com
• an informal talk involving two people or a small group of people; the act of talking in an informal way
• something that is similar to a spoken conversation

This definition specifies that the number of a conversation’s participants must be limited somehow. It also, interestingly, includes the second definition, “something that is is similar to a spoken conversation” that is vague enough to include the internet.

• Wikipedia.com
• Conversation is a form of interactive, spontaneous communication between two or more people who are following rules of etiquette.

This definition requires that conversation require a code of conduct.

Spoken conversation is unique in that it is momentary and impermanent. On the internet, the majority of communication takes place in text and, through a huge global network, billions of people are able to join each other in conversation. This may call for a change of definition.

conversation (n) - A form of interactive, unscripted communication between two or more people.

Online text sharing attempts to give form to text-based conversation, and opens conversation to any literate person with access to the internet. The format and guidelines of different webpages change the flow and capability of conversation in a variety of ways, altering the way we discuss a topic or even understand our discussion.

Youtube.com

Barring videos responses and video-based back-and-forth conversation, how does Youtube handle conversation?

Videos (content) open discussion. Commenters can leave remarks that, in general, are hoped to have something to do with the video. 

Youtube recently overhauled their comments section, due to its comments section’s horrible reputation for hate, trolling, and circle-jerking. Working with Google, the overhaul implemented three key ideas:

• You must have a Google+ account 

• Good comments will be rewarded by the community by being prioritized on the page

• Bad or negative comments, or comments that don't contribute to the conversation, will be penalized by the community

The overhaul left the Youtube community in shock for a few days, but as designers worked with the community to work out the kinks, the controversy subsided. 

It should be noted that Youtube emphasizes content over discussion of content. Any given video's individual page shows the video, information about the video, and related videos. Users have to scroll to reach the comment section, which is a subtle way of enacting an "out of sight, out of mind" policy.

Comments aren't visible from the top of the page.

Youtube allows users to view either the Top Comments or the Most Recent comments. This sort of eliminates controversy in the comments section. The comment that receives the most likes will probably start conversation, as the majority of viewers that view the comments will see the highest-rated comment. 

Users can reply to that comment, and there begins the conversation, but conversation must be pointed because replies to replies are all lined up together and its difficult to know who’s talking to whom, etc.

The only way to know who is talking to whom is by checking the tagged username. 

The issue with this is that negative comments or comments that are disliked are never seen. I couldn’t even find any. This is good because it eliminates hate, but it’s problematic because it dampens, or often quashes entirely, voices of dissent. If everyone’s opinion is valid, and everyone is on a level playing field, why must negative opinions be hidden? No one will get to know that I think this video is fucking useless, and that's a little sad. 

Youtube tried to deal with the problem of hateful comments by requiring a Google+ sign in to comment on videos. The idea was that users would have their real names attached to their comments, and would be more likely to self-police when commenting on content. This idea backfired, however, when users quickly realized that they could create any number of accounts, and those accounts could be made with any name. For whatever reason, internet users want to retain the safety of anonymity, and they did.

Youtube will likely continue to sweep the issues of its comments sections beneath the carpet, but it's okay. Their focus is on content, not response or discussion. 

Facebook.com

Facebook is interesting because, mostly, conversation involves a limited number of people.

In most cases, due to privacy settings, only your Facebook friends can see what you post. But not all of your Facebook friends can see what you post. Facebook tracks the patterns of what you like, comment on, share, or ignore on your news feed, and over time, streamlines your news feed to only show posts that it thinks you want to see. 

So, when you post a status or a photo, it doesn’t go directly the newsfeed of your 300 friends, it goes to the newsfeed of the friends that consistently view (click on), like, comment on, or share your posts. The more traffic a post gets, the more friends will see it on their newsfeed.

This leads to more directed and slightly more intimate conversation. 

Facebook posts work a little bit like a person with a megaphone. The poster, holding the megaphone, sends their message to the world, amplified over most other noise. Then, passersby or bystanders (commenters) can voice their approval, disapproval, or other opinion, at a volume less than that of the person with the megaphone.

On group pages, like “Overheard at SUNY Potsdam,” posts can be seen by every member of the group, and by friends of those who like, share, or comment on the “Overheard” page, opening the conversation to many more people. Almost no one is anonymous, which makes conversation more personal. 

People within the conversation have trouble keeping track of who's talking to whom.
The purple commenter had to edit his comment to include the name of the
light blue commenter to make his message more clear to the yellow commenter.

Facebook’s comment format only allows users to comment on posts, but not reply to comments, making lasting conversation on these often-controversial posts difficult and confusing. There’s also no character limit, so this bullshit happens: 

This shows two and a half comments.

There is no hierarchy, and there is no order other than chronology.

On very popular posts by organizations or celebrities, comments are able to be sorted by “top comment” or “recent activity.” 

Comments on these posts can be replied to, but the replies cannot be replied to, which cuts conversation short, and brings up the same issues as mentioned earlier.

It is clear here, as well, that the focus is on the content. The comments are literally pushed aside, and only a small portion of them are revealed at a time. Facebook allows for quick and often one-topic-only conversation, but doesn't facilitate or replicated the evolution we experience within real life conversation. 

Imgur.com

Imgur’s comment section works best, I think, as compared to Youtube and Facebook.

In this system, the comments are just as important as the post itself. 

In this particular example, the top of the page actually contains
more comments than there is image.

Comments can be sorted by 

• Top (most upvotes)
• Best (best upvote-to-downvote ratio) 
• Newest (most recent chronologically)
  

Imgur doesn’t separate comments onto different pages, so scrolling through all of the comments is possible, which leaves the least popular comments visible at the bottom of the comments section. The worst comments, those with a negative point score, can be viewed optionally by clicking a link that reveals them. 

The immediate downside of this style of comment section is that comment position priority goes to the highest-rated comments, which means that even users who don't browse the comments will see the top comments, and some will upvote them further due to the effect of the bandwagon.

Comments are meant to be based on the image content, or the post. Each comment then becomes the focus of a conversation that takes place in the comment replies, revealed by clicking any given comment. Replies may also be replied upon, and replies in any comment thread are indented, so users can easily see who’s talking to whom. 

This creates a very easy, coherent dialogue in the text comments. Conversation is able to evolve fluidly because users are able to reply directly to other comments. Commenters can also include links to images or animated gifs that appear when hovered over, which make reactions or tone more apparent, facilitating conversation further. 

Every voice is heard and hearable. Comments are moderated by the community, and commenters retain anonymity. 

This system is smart and well-implemented, replicating the back-and-forth of real life conversation, while enabling users to sort through conversations and enabling a huge number of people to easily contribute to a conversation. 


The medium we use to create and participate in conversation online acts as a limiting framework that dictates the input, outcome, and evolution of text-based conversation. Contributors may only participate as the format allows, which itself molds the growth and progression of spontaneous discussion. Good ol' Marshall McLuhan, he'll never let us forget.